Coach Paluch

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:54 pm

I honestly see that offense paying off next year though with the players we'll have. There's no doubt we have a very structured offense but there is a method to the madness. The only problem is that we didn't have that really strong goal tending this year to save our butts when we got held out to dry.

Don't get me wrong, Horrell is a great goalie, but even he'll admit he's no Siggy. I see Spratt being able to fill those shoes eventually.

bgsufalcon24 · Post by **bgsufalcon24** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:59 pm

BGDrew wrote:I honestly see that offense paying off next year though with the players we'll have. There's no doubt we have a very structured offense but there is a method to the madness. The only problem is that we didn't have that really strong goal tending this year to save our butts when we got held out to dry.

Don't get me wrong, Horrell is a great goalie, but even he'll admit he's no Siggy. I see Spratt being able to fill those shoes eventually.

I don't think goaltending was so much of a problem as the defense was. I remember many times our defenders turning the puck over in the zone and leaving the goalie hanging. At the last home game against RIT, Morrison dumped it behind the goal when there was nobody there, which resulted in an RIT goal. He did it again with under 3 minutes to play, but Horrell made a game-saving save. Mistakes like this have cost us in many games this season, in fact I think in the first game against Fairbanks the Nanooks got a few of their goals on defensive turnovers in the zone, one of which was scored with :10 left in the 2nd period. Maybe Horrell and Spratt aren't what we've had in the past, but until the defense gets better, its hard for the goaltending to be strong.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:05 pm

Turning the puck over in the neutral zone is a problem, I completely agree. I know the coaches have been, let's say, adamant about the turning over of pucks.

pdt1081 · Post by **pdt1081** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:06 pm

Bleeding Orange wrote:Back to the topic at hand (sorry for the further aside), I suppose if anyone was going to make a constructive criticism of Pooch's coaching this year, it would be that our offense could be considered "too structured." Now, bear with me here.

I am sitting here watching Canada vs. Finland (women), and it dawned on me that good teams, to some degree, allow things to happen (and I don't think anyone can deny that the Canadian women are a good team). Little things like throwing the puck at the off pad on a two-on-one rush hoping for a decent rebound rather than trying to force a pass by the defender, or through the goalie, are the kinds of things that I'm talking about. This is the type of thing that I think we could very much benefit, especially with a man-advantage. Really, I think we play more of a pass-and-shoot type of offense where everyone is kept around the perimeter and success is predicated by everyone being in proper position to hold the puck in and exploit the defense.

The only time that I can remember seeing or hearing of us really taking these types of chances and crashing the net was in the 3rd period against Colgate when we scored a goal off of an intentional shot and rebound off of the back boards. Other than that, I really don't recall us trying to employ these types of true "chance" plays.

And while it is the really "good" teams that do this kind of thing on a consistent basis, I also think that developing teams, like ours, can benefit from trying to make the unplanned happen. In reality, it could also benefit us defensively. Were we to become a bit more aggressive offensively below the point (i.e., crashing the net with both forwards and the centerman), our defensemen could remain along the blueline to ensure that breakaways do not happen (and this is a HUGE problem on our PP's this year).

I agree with you to a point. The "too structured" bit is true. I have yet to see a really good forecheck from us this year. We do a lot of dump and chase, but a good share of the time, we are just chasing the puck back to our end. The powerplay has a lot of similarities between the two units and doesn't change from game to game. All of our even strength setups look almost identical also.

The chance plays can work, but we really need to start using our boards to our advantage (see Pilkington's goal against Colgate?). The dump in around the boards from the penalty box side will throw the puck into the crease when it hits the zamboni doors. A clearing attempt around the glass to that same side (same end) will put the puck right on the faceoff dot. After practicing all year, and playing games, we should know every funny bounce possible off of OUR boards.

The difference between the chance plays in Women's Olympic hockey and CCHA hockey is the difference between night and day. The goalies and players in the CCHA are much better at controling things. Physical play can break up a lot of the plays you'd see in a Women's Game. Also factor in the amount of parity that exists in the CCHA and compare that to Women's Olympic hockey. There is no comparison.

pdt1081 · Post by **pdt1081** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:08 pm

bgsufalcon24 wrote: I don't think goaltending was so much of a problem as the defense was. I remember many times our defenders turning the puck over in the zone and leaving the goalie hanging. At the last home game against RIT, Morrison dumped it behind the goal when there was nobody there, which resulted in an RIT goal. He did it again with under 3 minutes to play, but Horrell made a game-saving save. Mistakes like this have cost us in many games this season, in fact I think in the first game against Fairbanks the Nanooks got a few of their goals on defensive turnovers in the zone, one of which was scored with :10 left in the 2nd period. Maybe Horrell and Spratt aren't what we've had in the past, but until the defense gets better, its hard for the goaltending to be strong.

I agree. Goaltending isn't a problem this year. Playing solid defense is.

Of course, we all know that all you need to do to win games is score more goals than you allow

BGFan · Post by **BGFan** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:24 pm

The Niz wrote:I agree totally with what you're proposing. Our team doesn't take enough chances on the offensive side of the ice. With a team that has speed issues such as our own we need to keep the opposition as off-balance as possible because we don't have anyone around fast enough to stop a breakaway, which is why we have so many problems with giving so many up.

We have the speed, trust me. 4-5 years ago, no. Now, yes. There aren't too many teams out there that are faster. OSU has one of the most talented AND fastest teams around (they're suffering from some very bad chemistry right now, but that doesn't negate the fact that they're fast and talented) yet we were skating circles around them at times. Even the slowest skater will sometimes win the race to the goalie with a 10-15 foot lead. Our problem isn't speed.

If anything we take too many chances in the offensive zone. By this, I mean the defense taking a chance by pinching in instead of getting back on D. The puck gets past them and all of a sudden there's an odd man rush with only one defenseman. The defense is fairly young. Knowing when to pinch in and when to get back will come with experience.

What BO is talking about isn't really about taking chances but creativity in the offensive zone. He hasn't been around enough this year to see the difference in play from last year. Listening on the radio doesn't do it justice.

Bleeding Orange · Post by **Bleeding Orange** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:34 pm

pdt1081 wrote: I agree with you to a point. The "too structured" bit is true. I have yet to see a really good forecheck from us this year. We do a lot of dump and chase, but a good share of the time, we are just chasing the puck back to our end. The powerplay has a lot of similarities between the two units and doesn't change from game to game. All of our even strength setups look almost identical also.

The chance plays can work, but we really need to start using our boards to our advantage (see Pilkington's goal against Colgate?). The dump in around the boards from the penalty box side will throw the puck into the crease when it hits the zamboni doors. A clearing attempt around the glass to that same side (same end) will put the puck right on the faceoff dot. After practicing all year, and playing games, we should know every funny bounce possible off of OUR boards.

The difference between the chance plays in Women's Olympic hockey and CCHA hockey is the difference between night and day. The goalies and players in the CCHA are much better at controling things. Physical play can break up a lot of the plays you'd see in a Women's Game. Also factor in the amount of parity that exists in the CCHA and compare that to Women's Olympic hockey. There is no comparison.

Like I said, I wasn't trying to make any definitive statements, more trying to give an example of constructive criticism. I also wasn't trying to pull anything out of women's hockey, either. I guess watching it, though, did make me start thinking about this.

I do agree that next year we will be in a much better position to run Pooch's structure, and I'm not really sure that changing our forechecking style this year would really make that much of a difference. I do think, however, that loosening up our offensive rotations a bit would help us in the transition game a great deal.

Like I have been saying, I really think that once Pooch gets the entire team recruited (next year), things will start to turn around. There will no longer be any difference in the mindset that players came to BG with and/or for, and everyone will, at least at the foundational level, be on the same page. I guess I said all of the above is because I wonder if it would have been smarter, for this year alone, to play a more "universal" style of game rather than a structured game that not all of our lines fit into properly. With the season nearly over it is pretty much pointless to even wonder, but I thought that people like Falconblue might benefit from seeing what constructive technical criticism looks like.

To hell with it. BEAT THE IRISH!!!!!!!

Bleeding Orange · Post by **Bleeding Orange** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:38 pm

BGFan wrote:
What BO is talking about isn't really about taking chances but creativity in the offensive zone. He hasn't been around enough this year to see the difference in play from last year. Listening on the radio doesn't do it justice.

Of that I'm sure. And it makes me sad...

And you're right, "creativity" is a much better word for what I am talking about. I don't know too much about the intricacies of the York/Paluch style of coaching, but I would imagine that they are more worried about establishing the foundations of their philosophies and allowing the creativity to build off of that. I can't say that I would disagree with that, either.

BGFan · Post by **BGFan** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:41 pm

pdt1081 wrote:
bgsufalcon24 wrote: I don't think goaltending was so much of a problem as the defense was. I remember many times our defenders turning the puck over in the zone and leaving the goalie hanging. At the last home game against RIT, Morrison dumped it behind the goal when there was nobody there, which resulted in an RIT goal. He did it again with under 3 minutes to play, but Horrell made a game-saving save. Mistakes like this have cost us in many games this season, in fact I think in the first game against Fairbanks the Nanooks got a few of their goals on defensive turnovers in the zone, one of which was scored with :10 left in the 2nd period. Maybe Horrell and Spratt aren't what we've had in the past, but until the defense gets better, its hard for the goaltending to be strong.
I agree. Goaltending isn't a problem this year. Playing solid defense is.

Of course, we all know that all you need to do to win games is score more goals than you allow

Suffice it to say that we have some players who prefer to spend their time in the offensive zone. It's NOT the defensemen (although they do make mistakes at times) that is the problem here. My guess on the Morrison play that you're talking about is that someone was SUPPOSED to be there who wasn't.

BGFan · Post by **BGFan** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:44 pm

Bleeding Orange wrote:
BGFan wrote:
What BO is talking about isn't really about taking chances but creativity in the offensive zone. He hasn't been around enough this year to see the difference in play from last year. Listening on the radio doesn't do it justice.
Of that I'm sure. And it makes me sad...

And you're right, "creativity" is a much better word for what I am talking about. I don't know too much about the intricacies of the York/Paluch style of coaching, but I would imagine that they are more worried about establishing the foundations of their philosophies and allowing the creativity to build off of that. I can't say that I would disagree with that, either.

Well, when you're taking shots from a bad angle behind the goal line and ricocheting them off of the back of the goalie and into the net....that's creativity. I've seen that happen more times this year than ever. It's a great play and impossible to defend when done right.

lindylou · Post by **lindylou** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:24 am

In response to a few of the comments I've read tonight, I'd have to say I disagree with many statements.

As far as Pooch is concerned, I think anyone with a set of eyes can see that he completely squirms behind the bench. He looks like a panic stricken child after a nightmare in tight games. When he goes into panic mode this filters through to the players and thus causes chaos on the ice. It's hard, especially for freshmen, to stay calm and collected when your coach is freaking out behind you. Seriously, sit behind the players' bench one game and watch Pooch. It's undeniable.

If we have a look back at the 6 game win streak there is one element that several people, in my opinion, seem to have missed. Coach Jamie was behind the bench stepping into to Fogerty's position while he was away recruiting. Did anyone happen to notice the unbelievable penalty kill and break out changes that were made as a result of Coach Jamie being behind the bench? The team was coming together and the defense looked stronger and more confident than ever. Did anyone happen to notice what happened upon Fogerty's return? He changed everything back to the way it was prior to his absence and the troubles returned. Just another observation.

The break-out that was attempted tonight was not working well. Why then, were changes not made during the game to correct this problem? I question the system that the coaches have put in place. The options were limited and one D man was often left hung out to dry. Yet another observation. Perhaps we'll see a change made tomorrow night---I hope so!

As far as the "lack of leadership" that has been mentioned I again disagree. I don't see it as a "lack" of leadership, but just a different kind of leadership in this years team. I have talked with several of the players on several occasions and not a one has had a bad thing to say about Morrison and the senior class. In fact, I have heard several say that they have never played on a team with such a "tight" group of players. In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, we have a great leaders who don't run their mouths, but lead by example...working hard in every practice, game, work-out,etc. The senior class isn't as big into the media as last year leaders were, but that doesn't mean that they aren't great leaders behind closed doors in the dressing room.

What does it take for a team to be successful? Many different elements come into play. However, I truly believe that our team has tons of talent, but a coaching staff that is not using the talent appropriately. I won't hold my breath for any type of championship to come while Pooch is behind the bench. Don't get me wrong...I will be at every game and will continue to be a die hard hockey fan. But I don't think Pooch will take any team all the way, no matter what type of talent has been recruited.

Bleeding Orange · Post by **Bleeding Orange** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:27 am

For the few of you that were in there tonight, did I not call this turning of the tides?

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:08 am

I haven't been but to three games in three years, so I'm not offering educated views here.

But I remember hearing a lot of the exact same talk about how the recruits were great, things were going in the right direction, and that the program was just around the corner. These views were all promoted during Buddy's first few years. Then the highly touted recruites never matured, failed to live-up to expectations, etc.

Just speaking in terms of observations I was around to make, and basic logic: yes, a new foundation had to be created. Old attitudes had to cut away from the bone, which required isolating the old talent from the new, and that takes time. We are not yet at a point to say any new direction has failed.

We all sense what the program can be, and that is what makes the fact it is still not, so frustrating. People want things to get better, and they are seeking out the nearest avenue to pursue that. That is a mistake that has lead to lesser programs to remain stalled for generations.

I can't think the program is worse off than before. They have played far to well to many times.

BGFan · Post by **BGFan** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:12 am

lindylou wrote:In response to a few of the comments I've read tonight, I'd have to say I disagree with many statements.

As far as Pooch is concerned, I think anyone with a set of eyes can see that he completely squirms behind the bench. He looks like a panic stricken child after a nightmare in tight games. When he goes into panic mode this filters through to the players and thus causes chaos on the ice. It's hard, especially for freshmen, to stay calm and collected when your coach is freaking out behind you. Seriously, sit behind the players' bench one game and watch Pooch. It's undeniable.

To me it looks more like he's pissed off than anything. Who wouldn't be with this Jekyl and Hyde team? Just when you think things have turned around...

lindylou wrote:If we have a look back at the 6 game win streak there is one element that several people, in my opinion, seem to have missed. Coach Jamie was behind the bench stepping into to Fogerty's position while he was away recruiting. Did anyone happen to notice the unbelievable penalty kill and break out changes that were made as a result of Coach Jamie being behind the bench? The team was coming together and the defense looked stronger and more confident than ever. Did anyone happen to notice what happened upon Fogerty's return? He changed everything back to the way it was prior to his absence and the troubles returned. Just another observation.

The last I heard they were running coach Paluch's system, not Fogerty's. It's Fogerty's and Jamie's job to teach the team what Paluch wants them to learn. To suggest that Fogerty put his own system in doesn't quite sound plausable. Besides, Fogerty has been out for long periods of time since December and I haven't seen what you deem to be true here. Did he do something to offend you to single him out like this?

lindylou wrote:The break-out that was attempted tonight was not working well. Why then, were changes not made during the game to correct this problem? I question the system that the coaches have put in place. The options were limited and one D man was often left hung out to dry. Yet another observation. Perhaps we'll see a change made tomorrow night---I hope so!

I didn't see enough of the game to comment on this since we had to leave at the end of the first period to see our son's game. I've seen enough to know, however, that when frustration sets in it seems that no matter what you try it doesn't work so the team seems to develop a "why bother" attitude.

lindylou wrote:As far as the "lack of leadership" that has been mentioned I again disagree. I don't see it as a "lack" of leadership, but just a different kind of leadership in this years team. I have talked with several of the players on several occasions and not a one has had a bad thing to say about Morrison and the senior class. In fact, I have heard several say that they have never played on a team with such a "tight" group of players. In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, we have a great leaders who don't run their mouths, but lead by example...working hard in every practice, game, work-out,etc. The senior class isn't as big into the media as last year leaders were, but that doesn't mean that they aren't great leaders behind closed doors in the dressing room.

What does it take for a team to be successful? Many different elements come into play. However, I truly believe that our team has tons of talent, but a coaching staff that is not using the talent appropriately. I won't hold my breath for any type of championship to come while Pooch is behind the bench. Don't get me wrong...I will be at every game and will continue to be a die hard hockey fan. But I don't think Pooch will take any team all the way, no matter what type of talent has been recruited.

A team can get along great and still have no real leadership amongst them. How well they get along says absolutely nothing about how well they are led. It's important, yes, but it's also important to have leaders that follow through with what the coach wants. Again, when I see that happen I see a team that can beat anyone. When I don't I see a team that is disorganized on the ice. Just my observations.

As far as I'm concerned the coach is the coach. What he wants done should be executed to the best of the player's ability while he's on the ice. Why is it that this team seems to execute one night and not the next? Or against one team and not the next? To me it's as if they're choosing when they want to play and when they don't. I know this isn't true, btw, it just seems that way. If you can play at the top of your game one night, why not every night? This is the real question.

Coach Paluch

Coaching or Leadership?

Re: Coaching or Leadership?